Click to read Ephesians 6:10-18
| Print |
We recommend "Landscape" print layout.

Threat From Competing Worldviews

By Carman Bradley

A worldview is a set of beliefs about the reality and meaning of life, which acts as a framework for establishing the truth.  It is expressed in ethics, cosmology, scientific belief, religion, ecology, philosophy, ideology, voting and governance.  Differences in opinion are often rooted in contrasting worldviews.  A state and each of its citizens holds a worldview, either tacitly or declared, and it is conceivable to change these beliefs.  For example, the recent Canadian decision to legislate same-sex marriage into law symbolizes full adoption of a secular humanist worldview by the state.  In reality, the state has been radically moving in this direction and away from the values of the country’s founding Judeo-Christian Worldview since the 1960’s.   Moreover, no insignificant number of professed Christians has altered their interpretation of the traditional suite of Christian beliefs.  Before the advent of so-called “Liberal Christianity” there was little unity of view between Christians and secular humanists (see the table below); however, liberal-minded Christians now claim to have discovered a number of “mutual” viewpoints between these two opposing worldviews.  Overturning almost two millenniums of unswerving theological interpretation, liberal Christians now advocate notions such as: “Darwinian Christianity,” “Pro-gay Christianity,” “Pro-life Contraception,” and “Pro-Choice [pro-abortion] Christianity.”   [The mandate of StandForGod.Org includes the objective of debugging these compromise notions; much of the website is devoted to this aim.]  Historical divisions between secular humanism and Christianity are summarized in the following table:



Secular Humanism



creation by an accidental “big bang”

creation by God’s design


started by an accident, evolved by random chance

deliberately created, humans are unique from the animal kingdom





social construct

male and female gender  by divine biological design


free, pre-marital, extra-marital, multipartner          

male and female, monogamous marriage, designed to procreate


self-centered, what can I do?

Christ-centered, what is God’s will for me?


basis of oppression

basis of family unit




any arrangement

by divine design, one wife,  one husband,  with children

societal building block



fixed gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, queer


Intended heterosexual male, female

reorientation to heterosexual is possible


survival of fittest

the first shall be last, the last shall be first


civil liberty, eros

sin, lust





The polar opposite and mutually exclusive nature of these two worldviews demands that advocacy of one implies simultaneous denunciation of the other.  And the Christian paradigm (according to orthodox interpretation!) comes as an interlocking package of values and guidance, which is not discretionary.  To improve the witness of Canadian Christendom, we need to educate believers that making-up your own worldview from a self-selected list of beliefs from both paradigms, or from some other worldviews, is neither rational nor scriptural.  Moreover, there is a huge cognitive flaw in the growing notion that professed Christians may choose where and when they adhere to their worldview.  The witness of Christendom is weakened by those who choose to stick with the associated Christian value system only when outside of the workplace or in private.  Paradoxically, some self-proclaimed Christian politicians see no need to heed their Lord in a legislative decision that so directly impacts the long-standing pillars of one’s stated faith (same-sex marriage, abortion law are examples).  Equally, a majority of Christians appear to have forgotten their worldview when going to the polls (2005 for example).  

These intermittent Christians are either closet secularists or bamboozled by the very humanists who would never dare abandon their beliefs at the entrance to the House of Commons or in the polling booth.  An editorial in the Calgary Herald illustrates the central error of separating God and state in this way: The original historical purpose of separating religion and state as advanced by the framers of the American republic in their foundational documents was that there ought to be no institutional control of the organs of government by a particular denomination or any religion, or vice-versa…Then as now, the Church of England was established as the official state religion in both Great Britain and its American colonies….This had critical implications in matters of worship for people of other faiths, and when the colonists had a chance to separate the church from the state, they took it.[1]   

That separation; however, was never intended to compel politicians with faith (or the voting Christian public) to set aside their convictions in the conduct of state affairs.  The same editorial argues: …if one were to banish religious impulses from decision-making in politics, why not banish irreligious convictions that originate in feminism, environmentalism or atheism?...Finally, insofar as politicians with faith are concerned, there is a risk of great personal hypocrisy if they do not follow at least some teachings of their church in matters of state, presumably ones that are grave….Setting aside deeply-held convictions for the sake of political expediency does not constitute the proper separation of church and state, but the separation of one’s conscience from one’s deeds.  It is in fact intellectual and spiritual suicide.   

The value in a well-articulated worldview is to hold adherents to the full Gospel intent.  God is not a rheostat, by which you adjust His guidance and impact to suit a desired situation.  Those who claim to be Christian and choose to treat the Word of God in a rheostatic fashion, promote unbiblical norms in ethics and are in reality against Jesus Christ.  These critics of Christian orthodoxy usually propose to set aside explicit biblical teaching and substitute secular alternatives.  The result of this line of thinking is the attitude that explicit biblical teaching is often “irrelevant.”  Allowed to predominate for an extended period, as in Canada, the result is a conversion from a god-fearing nation to a secular humanist state. 

Under the title “Resolution to Combat Religious Influence,” the HAC proclaims: “The Humanist Association of Canada is a national association that includes humanists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers, and non-church-affiliated people.[2]  We believe that Canada could be a model for many countries on how to develop a free and democratic society composed of many different ethnic, religious, and philosophical groups living in harmony.  We believe strongly in the separation of church and state and the neutrality of the state in matters of religion …Many current practices are undemocratic and unfair… We believe in a secular school system for all… Another example is the recitation of prayers at official functions.  These are unacceptable…Although unsuccessful, many of our members signed a petition to have the reference to God removed from the preamble of the Canadian Constitution.  This petition was read out in Parliament by MP Svend Robinson on June 8, 1999.” [3]   

Same-sex marriage legislation accomplishes in symbolism and practicality what these humanists and MP Robinson could not achieve by a direct and informed democratic process.  The humanists wanted “God” removed from the statement “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God,” and replaced by “intellectual knowledge.”  In ruling the way they did on marriage redefinition, the Supreme Court has finally completed the progressive amputation of the worth of this theist Preamble statement.  Begun in the late 1970s with the legalization of “abortion-on-demand” and subsequently through a chain of homosexual liberation rulings, executed in earnest after 1982, the Supreme Court justices have consistently acted as if Canada is a “comprehensive” liberal secular humanist constitutional state.  According to the Preamble to our Constitution, if it has legal effect, this conduct is unconstitutional.  “What is the value of this Preamble reference to God, if there is never a time when theology is considered as part of governance decision-making?”  Moreover, these “principles” were proclaimed a century before the 1970s.  Surely, the living tree analogy (that the Constitution grows and changes with time, nothing is frozen forever) doesn’t apply to God.  The God referred to in the Preamble is not a human projection, to be reimaged as “intellectual knowledge” would desire.  “What is the value of this Preamble acknowledgement of God’s supremacy, if the highest court in the land holds to a secular humanist worldview in all its rulings?” Certainly, in matters as pivotal to religion as the meaning of marriage, the Court Party has proved its secular humanist bias.  The bulk of this website is entirely devoted to debunking the notion that somehow, in the enlightenment and spirit of sexual liberation, God has morphed into some new deity harnessed by a postmodern pro-homosexual “cosmology.”  What has really taken place in so-called “liberal” churches is the mutation of theologies towards secular humanism, to some novel compromised mix of religious and Darwinian notions – what Howard Bloom calls the “American Religion.”[4]       

Copyright © 2008 StandForGod.Org

[1] Editorial “Spiritual suicide,” Calgary Herald, August 3, 2003.

[2] Atheists, representing 0.06 percent of the population, deny the existence of any god - “I do not know.”  Agnostics, another 0.06 percent of Canadians, go beyond atheism to claim “one cannot know” God.

[4] Howard Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p.22.